Gay Marriage Equal Signs As Displays Of Groupthink And Weakness

 

When Brandon Eich was forced out as Mozilla CEO because he refused to recant his position against same-sex marriage, responses were all over the map. A writer at Slate actually tried to justify the termination as a good thing. Libertarian Nick Gillespie said he was “ambivalent” about Eich’s removal but that Eich’s resignation simply “shows how businesses respond to market signals.” And even conservatives weren’t rallying behind Eich on the grounds that marriage is an institution designed around sexual complementarity so much as by saying that even if he’s wrong, conscience should be protected.

They’re all wrong, I argue in “The Rise Of The Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents.” I just wanted to share it here since Ricochet has been so formative in changing my views on this topic. “I’ve evolved,” is how you say that, I guess. And I don’t evolve on much, so that’s saying something.

Ricochet dissidents against groupthink on this topic challenged my most basic assumptions and patiently explained their reasoning to me over the views. It had profound significance on my thinking and I just wanted to thank you.

In my piece at the link, I look at how everyone plays a role in building totalitarian systems that control thought. You can do it by being a media figure who covers the story in criminally biased fashion or you can do it by being a cowardly politician. You can do it by mindlessly putting up an equals sign avatar without having even thought through what it meant. 

My inspiration for the piece was Vaclav Havel’s excellent 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless,” which explores how members of society take part in groupthink operations. He talks about how people under communism mindlessly put up the “Workers of the World, Unite!” signs without thinking through what the meaning of those signs is. I found in that a parallel with the way we frame our positions on sexual complementarity, sexual distinctions, the meaning of marriage and its role in society.

Havel noted that the green grocer’s act of taking that sign down  changes the whole panorama. It forces discussions that weren’t previously possible. It’s a small move. It’s not partisan. But whether it’s just the small discussions with our friends, or the refusal to recant views at great career cost, these acts of dissent are invigorating.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 107 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Molly,

    Tremendous article.  Your point is very well taken.  SSM isn’t wrong because gays don’t have the right to get married.  SSM is wrong because it isn’t marriage in the first place.  SSM is the destruction of secular marriage.  Everything becomes a civil union.  The dire effects on the family aren’t even to be considered.

    The conformist non-conformists and intolerant tolerant can’t see the other point of view and think that theirs is the only one.  What ever side of history they are on, they are on the wrong side of morality.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #1
  2. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    What most infuriates me about this episode is that it’s entirely … entirely … a thought crime.

    Not to mention that opposition to SSM is a thought that at least 45% of the people in this country agree with. Pause to consider how history was changed just because Ellen DeGeneres became cute.
     
    Since when does a 5% or 10% lead in opinion polls give you the right to get people fired?

    The weakness of thought is appalling, both from the gay lobby and the people who empower them by quaking in fear whenever anyone threatens to dislike them. We’re a nation of mental cowards.

    • It also happens to coincide with the Mark Steyn lawsuit, and repeated calls for people to be punished for not believing in global warming.
    • Last year, John Kerry and Howard Dean both publicly called for media outlets to prevent climate change skeptics from speaking, on the theory that networks shouldn’t broadcast “wrong” opinions.
    • Barack Obama had the nerve to tell the country that as far as healthcare is concerned, “the debate is over.”


    The obvious retort is … “Who the hell are you to decide? Who made you the authorities on truth?”

    Let us recall the conservative mission statement from Brother Buckley: to stand athwart history yelling Stop!

    • #2
  3. user_96427 Member
    user_96427
    @tommeyer

    KC Mulville: What most infuriates me about this episode is that it’s entirely … entirely … a thought crime.Not to mention that opposition to SSM is a thought that at least 45% of the people in this country agree with. Not to mention that it was a dominant thought until Ellen DeGeneres suddenly became cute.Since when does a 5% or 10% lead in opinion polls give you the right to get people fired?The weakness of thought is appalling, both from the gay lobby and the people who empower them by quaking in fear whenever anyone threatens to dislike them.

     Hear, hear.

    • #3
  4. Mollie Hemingway Member
    Mollie Hemingway
    @MollieHemingway

    KC Mulville: KC Mulville What most infuriates me about this episode is that it’s entirely … entirely … a thought crime. Not to mention that opposition to SSM is a thought that at least 45% of the people in this country agree with. Pause to consider how history was changed just because Ellen DeGeneres became cute.   Since when does a 5% or 10% lead in opinion polls give you the right to get people fired? The weakness of thought is appalling, both from the gay lobby and the people who empower them by quaking in fear whenever anyone threatens to dislike them. We’re a nation of mental cowards.

    Sure, but I hope people understand precisely why the push to redefine marriage requires this type of groupthink and can tolerate no dissent. Brandon Eich wasn’t fired for having the wrong views. He was fired because his correct views made his community uncomfortable. In the same way a child shouting “The Emperor has no clothes!” is deeply subversive. Particularly via his refusal to recant under pressure, he’s the Havelian greengrocer who pulls down his sign and provokes instability in the system.

    There’s a reason why people like Eich are best viewed as dissidents, not minority figures. They’re a threat to the whole system. And we each play a role in it, big or small. What role we play, of course, is up to us.

    • #4
  5. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Excellent as usual Mollie. Why would the pro-ssm crowd want to silence opponents? Is it maybe because opponents speak truth and in all totalitarian systems truth is the enemy. I’m increasingly of the view that the harsher the demands of ssm crowd, the greater the likelihood that the anti-ssm side has truth as its weapon.

    • #5
  6. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Whether Eich’s views are correct is debatable .   I agree he resigned because he made people uncomfortable.  Painting people on the other side of the debate as unthinking go along to get along

    • #6
  7. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Does nothing to further the debate on the actual issue.   I would argue that this tactic is why the country has shifted positions on the issue.

    • #7
  8. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    When truth is a house of cards, and each card needs to be in a particular place … you really need everyone to avoid touching the cards. One drop and the whole house collapses.

    Eich wasn’t fired because he was wrong; he was fired because he threatened to collapse the house of cards.

    And it is a house of cards. Not just the same-sex marriage card … I’m talking about the entire structure of social relationships in which sex is just a good time and relationships are mutually fulfulling but nothing more.

    • #8
  9. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Best thing I’ve ever read on the subject. To my shame, though, I read it using Firefox.

    • #9
  10. user_928618 Inactive
    user_928618
    @JimLion

    I did the one thing I could do, I deleted my Mozilla Firefox web browser. It’s gone, and I feel good about it.

    • #10
  11. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Jim Lion:I did the one thing I could do, I deleted my Mozilla Firefox web browser. It’s gone, and I feel good about it.

     Ironic, given Mollies post…

    • #11
  12. Mollie Hemingway Member
    Mollie Hemingway
    @MollieHemingway

    Herbert Woodbery:

    Jim Lion:I did the one thing I could do, I deleted my Mozilla Firefox web browser. It’s gone, and I feel good about it.

    Ironic, given Mollies post…

     Not at all. My piece is about the little ways we fight the groupthink  that led to Eich’s termination — finding space in the area that’s less political and more about the right to live our lives without getting fired or being afraid to say what we believe or speak the truth about sexual complementarity.

    A show of solidarity against the groupthink that led to Eich’s exit — such as, essentially, refusing to shop at the store that fired him — is the perfect response.

    The system is designed to silence and remove dissidents. Refusing to go along in that exercise is what Havel advocated. It fits here, too.

    I’m a longtime Mozilla user and I uninstalled it from my devices last week. I probably should have saved my passwords first but it’s too late for that. 

    Great Prager explanation of why you should uninstall Firefox here.

    • #12
  13. SPare Inactive
    SPare
    @SPare

    I uninstalled Firefox today.  I have been using it for 6 or 7 years now, but no more.  Need  to take a stand, not so much because of Mozilla, but so that the next one doesn’t cave to these totalitarians.

    • #13
  14. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    So how would you differentiate those who change their Facebook sign and those who delete Mozilla ?

    • #14
  15. Mollie Hemingway Member
    Mollie Hemingway
    @MollieHemingway

    Herbert Woodbery:So how would you differentiate those who change there Facebook sign and those who delete Mozilla ?

    Well, how would you differentiate those shopkeepers in Czechoslovakia who put up “Workers of the World, Unite!” signs from Vaclav Havel? Being a dissident against a totalitarian culture is not the same as being a part of it. Whatever the merits of communism or redefining marriage, the culture these things have produced have led to some rather scary conformism. I’m sure some small percentage of “Workers of the World, Unite!” and “Equal Sign” folks were deeply committed to their ideologies. But I’m sure the vast majority simply went along without thinking. So how is it different to put up the sign that keeps you safe vs. showing solidarity against those who fire a man for saying the “Emperor has no clothes!”? I’m not entirely sure I see how they’re at all the same.

    • #15
  16. AndTheRest Inactive
    AndTheRest
    @AndTheRest

    James Gawron: SSM isn’t wrong because gays don’t have the right to get married. SSM is wrong because it isn’t marriage in the first place. SSM is the destruction of secular marriage. Everything becomes a civil union.

     This is something I was wondering over the weekend.  If the only approved use of “marriage” is now “civil union” then the word for “a union of husband and wife” is…

    WANTED: New Words for Ancient Ideas

    • #16
  17. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    We might disagree on which side is fighting a totalitarian culture,  the one who wishes to use government to restrict marriage rights of its minority population, or the one that wants less government intervention in people’s lives regarding whom they can choose to marry.   The Eich firing/quitting wasn’t government action, so people acting out on both sides are trying to influence corporate decisions using their free capital rights.

    • #17
  18. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    @DCMcAllister

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. We know this from nature and from revelation.

    However, I’m an advocate of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether except when the marriage contract has been broken and property agreements and child custody/child support come into play. 

    It’s not the role of the government to “define” marriage; its role is simply to recognize contracts made between two people. Historically (prior to English law), the government did play the intrusive role it now plays in marriage. Families and churches were in authority in these matters.

    The federal government also has no right imposing its will on the states in this matter. This overreach is the real threat when it comes to the SSM issue. It’s a constitutional threat.

    • #18
  19. user_48342 Member
    user_48342
    @JosephEagar

    By the way, why is everyone fixating on the right of Mozilla to fire Eich?  Why can’t we simply say that it was morally wrong to force the man out?  There’s nothing hypocritical about that; it doesn’t mean we’re embracing  government vetoing of employment decisions or anything of the kind.  It just means that in the marketplace of ideas, we think Mozilla was wrong to do this.

    • #19
  20. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    I could go along with getting government out of marriage,  certainly lead to a less totalitarianism.   Let those who want to get married define it how their conscience/religion/culture/imagination desires,   Should lead to some interesting concoctions.

    • #20
  21. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Joseph Eagar:By the way, why is everyone fixating on the right of Mozilla to fire Eich? Why can’t we simply say that it was morally wrong to force the man out? There’s nothing hypocritical about that; it doesn’t mean we’re embracing government vetoing of employment decisions or anything of the kind. It just means that in the marketplace of ideas, we think Mozilla was wrong to do this.

     Is it the job of mozilla to be morally correct in its decisions?   Why can’t it focus on what’s best for business?

    • #21
  22. Robert Lux Inactive
    Robert Lux
    @RobertLux

    “Homosexuality as a social movement is not a movement of love but a movement of hatred and indifference.”

    –Philip Rieff, My Life Among the Deathworks: Illustrations of the Aesthetics of Authority.

    “It is the rejection of rejection, by transgressive movements, of the entire notion of dangerous situations that has become the special object of fear and hatred in modern society. The liberal defense of these transgressions must itself bring liberalism itself crashing down, for in that defense, the liberals are defending the destruction of avoidance mechanisms which are necessary to the practice of liberalism itself”

    –Rieff, Charisma: The Gift of Grace and How it Has Been Taken Away from Us. 

    • #22
  23. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Robert Lux:“Homosexuality as a social movement is not a movement of love but a movement of hatred and indifference.”–Philip Rieff, My Life Among the Deathworks: Illustrations of the Aesthetics of Authority. “It is the rejection of rejection, by transgressive movements, of the entire notion of dangerous situations that has become the special object of fear and hatred in modern society. The liberal defense of these transgressions must itself bring liberalism itself crashing down, for in that defense, the liberals are defending the destruction of avoidance mechanisms which are necessary to the practice of liberalism itself”–Rieff, Charisma: The Gift of Grace and How it Has Been Taken Away from Us.

     

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    • #23
  24. user_1184 Inactive
    user_1184
    @MarkWilson

    Herbert Woodbery: We might disagree on which side is fighting a totalitarian culture, the one who wishes to use government to restrict marriage rights of its minority population, or the one that wants less government intervention in people’s lives regarding whom they can choose to marry.

    By “intervention” I presume you are referring to the fact that the government has simply remained passive and apathetic toward the romantic relationships of gays. 

    • #24
  25. Herbert Woodbery Member
    Herbert Woodbery
    @Herbert

    Mark Wilson:

    Herbert Woodbery: We might disagree on which side is fighting a totalitarian culture, the one who wishes to use government to restrict marriage rights of its minority population, or the one that wants less government intervention in people’s lives regarding whom they can choose to marry.

    By “intervention” I presume you are referring to the fact that the government has simply remained passive and apathetic toward the romantic relationships of gays.

     I wouldn’t say the creation of marriage laws that favor certain people getting married is passive or apathetic.

    • #25
  26. Mollie Hemingway Member
    Mollie Hemingway
    @MollieHemingway

    D.C. McAllister:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. We know this from nature and from revelation.However, I’m an advocate of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether except when the marriage contract has been broken and property agreements and child custody/child support come into play.It’s not the role of the government to “define” marriage; its role is simply to recognize contracts made between two people. Historically, the government has not played the intrusive role it now plays in marriage. Families and churches were in authority in these matters.The federal government also has no right imposing its will on the states in this matter. This overreach is the real threat when it comes to the SSM issue. It’s a constitutional threat.

    While I am of the same mind, in many respects, it’s worth noting that making this the bulk of what one says at a time like this may serve little purpose other than making peace with a totalitarian system of thought. For one thing, “getting the government out of marriage” is not really a phrase that means anything. The question is what is marriage and what is the public interest in it.  The question on the table is whether government should redefine marriage and to what end. And on that, it’s important to think through the ramifications of saying sexual complementarity is not only not *the* key element in marriage but an unimportant feature of same. Compared to what that does to humanity, federal overreach is nothing.

    • #26
  27. user_1184 Inactive
    user_1184
    @MarkWilson

    Herbert Woodbery: I wouldn’t say the creation of marriage laws that favor certain people getting married is passive or apathetic.

    Gays’ situation legally, with respect to marriage, is no different that it was before traditional marriages were codified.  Am I wrong on that?

    • #27
  28. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Herbert Woodbery: Let those who want to get married define it how their conscience/religion/culture/imagination desires, Should lead to some interesting concoctions.

     Indeed.  Bow wow.

    • #28
  29. D.C. McAllister Inactive
    D.C. McAllister
    @DCMcAllister

    Mollie Hemingway:

    D.C. McAllister:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. We know this from nature and from revelation.However, I’m an advocate of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether except when the marriage contract has been broken and property agreements and child custody/child support come into play.It’s not the role of the government to “define” marriage; its role is simply to recognize contracts made between two people. Historically, the government has not played the intrusive role it now plays in marriage. Families and churches were in authority in these matters.The federal government also has no right imposing its will on the states in this matter. This overreach is the real threat when it comes to the SSM issue. It’s a constitutional threat.

    While I am of the same mind, in many respects, it’s worth noting that making this the bulk of what one says at a time like this may serve little purpose other than making peace with a totalitarian system of thought. For one thing, “getting the government out of marriage” is not really a phrase that means anything. The question is what is marriage and what is the public interest in it. The question on the table is whether government should redefine marriage and to what end. And on that, it’s important to think through the ramifications of saying sexual complementarity is not only not *the* key element in marriage but an unimportant feature of same. Compared to what that does to humanity, federal overreach is nothing.

     Well, I don’t give mankind that much power in restructuring nature (it can “redefine” away, but the world “must be peopled” and it will be; at some point survival instincts kick in).

    I want to dismantle the totalitarian regime not make peace with it in any way. If the tooth is taken out of the beast, it will have no power to “define” morality either way.

    Getting the government out of marriage means something in that it is not the one who decides who can or cannot be married. The issue is really a cultural one not a political one. I think you and I would agree on that. If you have an entire culture rejecting marriage between a man and a woman, there is not much you can do about it—though I don’t think that will ever happen–in practice, no matter how much a minority calls two people imitating sex as a “marriage.” 

    Our culture on the whole upholds marriage as being between a man and a woman. The great problem of our time is the federal government imposing its will on states (and, thus, individuals). If you don’t have liberty, you will not be free to pursue happiness.

    • #29
  30. Pilli Inactive
    Pilli
    @Pilli

    Herbert Woodbery:

    Joseph Eagar:By the way, why is everyone fixating on the right of Mozilla to fire Eich? Why can’t we simply say that it was morally wrong to force the man out? There’s nothing hypocritical about that; it doesn’t mean we’re embracing government vetoing of employment decisions or anything of the kind. It just means that in the marketplace of ideas, we think Mozilla was wrong to do this.

    Is it the job of mozilla to be morally correct in its decisions? Why can’t it focus on what’s best for business?

     Yes, it is the job of Mozilla to be morally correct in its decisions because what is not moral is not “best for business.”  You could just as easily ask, “Is it the job of GM to make the morally correct decision to fix its defective ignition systems? Why can’t it focus on what’s best for business?”

    Herbert Woodbery:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    What does this mean in the context of this thread?  Are you saying that personal happiness trumps all?

    Remember that the Creator of those unalienable rights also created men and women differently for a specific purpose.  He who denies that purpose also denies those unalienable rights.  If you’re going to lean on the Creator, you have to abide by all His rules.  It’s all or nothing.  

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.